pile-up

It seems to me that the non-linear coming into being that Ryan mentions is also Deleuze’s second aspect of time; no longer a succession of movements and their units, but time as simultaneism and simultaneity (46). This second aspect of time is the fundamentally open whole in which the indivisibility of movement is understood as continuous and limitless, always giving rise to something new. I think of this open whole as the plane of immanence, which Deleuze tells us is both the movement established between sets and the movement which keeps them open, allowing them to move and change and get messed up with us as bodies, too

Stones and Cinema

Sub-atomic theory visualizes motion in stillness: A stone has a lifespan at a molecular level, and it moves very slowly even though one would need eons to perceive these motions. In terms of cinema, change the duration (at any level) and the reality attached to it changes with it! The notion between duration, movement and perception become skewed. Here I can fully appreciate the works of  Douglas Gordon, where the imperceptible becomes visceral, as the notion of movement-image challenges our perception. 

Sets and Domains

"We may therefor say that the plane of immanence or the plane of matter is: a set of movement-images; a collection of lines or figures of light; a series of blocs of space-time" (Deleuze, 61)

This formulation put forth by Delueze in order to clarify the relations between light, image and space-time could perhaps be seen as paralleling (or being derivations of) Einstein's concept of relativity, which originally lead to the definition of the space-time model. 

Einstein's theory allows that nothing can be considered to exist outside of an event's (observer's) future or past light cone as defined by the expanding light energy traveling from said event (observer). This is due to the limit of all moving phenomena as being necessarily slower than the speed of light. And, if nothing can move faster than light then reality needs to be contained within a light-event. What can potentially exist outside the light cones can not affect or be affected by the event; they for all intents and purposes do not exist.

Is it possible that the "set movement-images" referred to by Delueze and contained within its domain, as defined by the plane of immanence, is synonymous with the "set of all perception and matter" as contained in the future and past light cones of an event? And, if so, in how many ways can the event be defined?